Advertisement
by Theodosiya » Fri Mar 27, 2020 7:48 pm
by Iltica » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:08 pm
New Vihenia wrote:Iltica wrote:Hello all, I was wondering if anyone knew how much more difficult it was to produce jet engines in the 30,000 lb / 130 kN thrust range like the P&W F100 or Saturn AL-31 than ones in the 18,000 lb / 80 kN range like the Klimov RD-33 or GE F404?
I was planning on having 2 main fighters. A smaller single-engine "tactical" fighter that would be cheap enough to risk using for WVR missions and as a strike fighter, complemented by a more expensive twin-engine "strategic" fighter that would focus mainly on BVR combat and air-superiority roles but I haven't really settled on the optimal size for each.
The level of difficulty is roughly proportional to Turbine rotor inlet temperature. The higher the more difficult the engine would be to develop and manufacture.
by New Vihenia » Fri Mar 27, 2020 10:16 pm
Iltica wrote:Couldn't find all of them, but the RD-33 is 1,407 °C / 2,565 °F and the Saturn 1,392 °C / 2,537 °F, pretty close. Well that's nice.
I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?
by Doppio Giudici » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:18 am
Theodosiya wrote:How useful a modern 57mm gun with 21st century tech as SPAAG and as main armament of IFV, coupled with ATGM, GPMG and HMG on RCWS?
by New Vihenia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:30 am
by North Arkana » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:51 am
by New Vihenia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:53 am
North Arkana wrote:There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.
by North Arkana » Sat Mar 28, 2020 12:57 am
by Gallia- » Sat Mar 28, 2020 1:37 am
New Vihenia wrote:North Arkana wrote:There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.
But there is this.
North Arkana wrote:Russia has a massive surplus of 57mm shells. And they're cheapskates. Of course they'd make an AFV that uses them. Only a minority of shells are going to of the guided type, but I guess if you're an NS nation it's not an issue, so meh.
North Arkana wrote:New Vihenia wrote:
Big-Bad-killer and easier to put guidance in.
There's not much in between what can be killed with a 25-35mm autocannon, and what needs a heavy ATGM or 120+mm (maybe 105mm if they're only super fat rather than uberfat) APFSDS. Uberfat IFVs and APCs need anti-MBT levels of firepower, while ones which don't need MBT level logistics are handled well enough by lighter weapons than a 57mm. Assuming you're already carrying heavy ATGMs, you have your anti-MBT firepower onboard already, so spending weight to get something so large for the main gun just seems like a poor return on investment.
by Purpelia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:37 am
by Gallia- » Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:34 am
by Purpelia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:31 am
Gallia- wrote:You are literally describing BMP-1.
by Gallia- » Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:41 am
by The Akasha Colony » Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:50 am
Iltica wrote:I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?
by New Vihenia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:07 am
by Purpelia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:44 am
by Austrasien » Sat Mar 28, 2020 10:53 am
by Iltica » Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:43 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Iltica wrote:I don't understand why the JF-17 and HAL Tejas are so small then? Is it more the cost of content like the Radar and trying to cut back on the logistical burden or something?
For the same reason Rafale and Typhoon aren't as big as F-15 or Su-27. They wanted to build a plane that size.
JF-17 and Tejas are supposed to affordably replace older planes in a similar size range. If Pakistan wanted bigger and better planes they'd buy more F-16s. And India has an obvious desire to build a separate heavy fighter of their own, but still needs something to replace their old MiG-21s.
by The Akasha Colony » Sat Mar 28, 2020 3:15 pm
Iltica wrote:Is it more operating costs and runway requirements they are concerned about?
I just don't see how being smaller would make much difference on the manufacturing end if the technology level is kept the same.
by Iltica » Sat Mar 28, 2020 4:57 pm
The Akasha Colony wrote:Iltica wrote:Is it more operating costs and runway requirements they are concerned about?
I just don't see how being smaller would make much difference on the manufacturing end if the technology level is kept the same.
It drives up costs everywhere. If all you need is a light fighter to replace your old light fighters, why would you bother with something more expensive? It's like asking why the US or USSR didn't just buy an all-F-15 or Su-27 fleet.
Likewise, France and the Eurofighter participants had design requirements for range, speed, payload, etc. that could be met with a fighter in the size range of Typhoon or Rafale and didn't require something bigger like F-15 or Su-27.
A bigger plane requires more fuel to fly, more T-R modules for the radar (and in turn more processing power in the avionics to handle the data), more raw components (and in turn more machining time), and more man-hours to build and maintain. These all tend to snowball into each other. If you don't have an actual need for these capabilities to fill specific role you're willing to pay for, why waste money on capabilities that are unnecessary?
For the Pakistanis, Chinese, and Indians, starting small is a cheaper and less costly way to develop the domestic technology and industrial base that can later be transferred and built upon to build larger, more complex aircraft. JF-17 and Tejas aren't meant to be super high-performance world-beating aircraft, so they're a low-stakes place to start.
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:06 pm
can't it be timed so the missile is released into freefall then the engine activates?Austrasien wrote:
I don't think there is enough clearance between the ATGM rails and the guns on the side - a missile leaving rail is going to pass REALLY close to the muzzle of the Gatling gun. Perhaps increase the length of the pylons so there is more clearance?
by Purpelia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:10 pm
by Questarian New Yorkshire » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:12 pm
by Purpelia » Sat Mar 28, 2020 5:32 pm
by Communist Xomaniax » Sat Mar 28, 2020 6:58 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]
Advertisement